puntloos Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 2 hours ago, the_r_sole said: as per @Bitpipe's post - it doesn't really feel like you're getting the most/best out of your architect because you're trying to drive the design - I'm sure any creatives in the group will have seen the I design, you watch pricelist before.... Worth keeping in mind for me. Too many people here have raised a bit of a warning flag to just wave away but if anything I just think it's because I'm communicating poorly here - or falling major victim to the XY Problem 2 hours ago, the_r_sole said: I've worked with a fair number of self builders before, but I've never have someone work like you appear to be, I'm not sure how or why you've engaged them, but it looks like you're paying money to a design professional and then redesigning their design - can you not just sit down around a table with a set of drawings and tell them what you want them to design? "Table" in covid doesn't really work.. 1 hour ago, DevilDamo said: It’s all very well having a client wanting to get involved but to me, this much involvement is quite concerning. I’d feel embarrassed or upset if one of my clients was asking the quantity and quality of the OP across the forum. Just hope their architect never reads BH ? Can you explain a bit more what your concern is? Do you feel I'm behaving inappropriately, or the architect is not doing their job? Why upset? To be clear I have tried hard to leave out any identifying info and/or architect names to not connect it to them, and I doubt I've been too negative about them since that's not what I've felt about them. Very much in general though, the core reason why we got an architect is that I don't have the skill/experience/confidence to be my own architect, but I do care a lot about getting this stuff optimal not just 'fine', so indeed I'm basically kicking the tyres of the entire process, running things by BuildHub as you've seen etc etc. It's a way for me to learn as well as indeed deeply understanding various implications of choices and compromises we're making. At the end of the day I don't want to be responsible for "signing off on the design" as solid, but I have been actively contributing to it. So far the architect hasn't complained. For what it's worth a friend of mine is a freelance architect/project manager who has been advising us and she hasn't put up any warning flags around our process either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, puntloos said: "Table" in covid doesn't really work.. but a zoom call with a screen share can work just fine, it's just a turn of phrase, but it doesn't appear that you have had much contact with your architect, it seems more like you get something from them, and then start re-designing, asking for help and advice on here, then going back with a new solution (and associated issues) - that's not the usual role of an architect, you've said they usually do much bigger houses, but you've obviously got them on board because you like what they have done in the past - so you should let them do what they do! I'm absolutely not saying that you shouldn't be involved in the design process, I've got some amazingly engaged clients, but we work very hard to make sure we are communicating our designs in a way they understand and at every stage we tweak things with them - a lot of the things you are trying to add in here are really things that need to be established at the start of the design process, and the the architects job is to bring those together into a functional, compliant design 16 minutes ago, puntloos said: It's a way for me to learn as well as indeed deeply understanding various implications of choices and compromises we're making. remember, you're paying a design professional who does this for a living, they should be working with you to make sure you understand these implications and compromises Edited July 20, 2020 by the_r_sole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntloos Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, the_r_sole said: but a zoom call with a screen share can work just fine, it's just a turn of phrase, but it doesn't appear that you have had much contact with your architect, it seems more like you get something from them, and then start re-designing, asking for help and advice on here, then going back with a new solution (and associated issues) - that's not the usual role of an architect, you've said they usually do much bigger houses, but you've obviously got them on board because you like what they have done in the past - so you should let them do what they do! I'm absolutely not saying that you shouldn't be involved in the design process, I've got some amazingly engaged clients, but we work very hard to make sure we are communicating our designs in a way they understand and at every stage we tweak things with them - a lot of the things you are trying to add in here are really things that need to be established at the start of the design process, and the the architects job is to bring those together into a functional, compliant design remember, you're paying a design professional who does this for a living, they should be working with you to make sure you understand these implications and compromises All true, but take this loft situation for example. We've established at the start that we don't "deeply care" about having a livable loft, but it would be nice I suppose but price and etc etc. So, their design included a loft with a low ceiling as shown (1800mm). But 'at this point' (unfortunate I didn't check earlier perhaps) I've noticed that I am 'close' to reaching a convertible loft etc. So I don't feel they have done it wrong, its just that this came to my attention fairly randomly, perhaps during the discussion around the spiral staircase.. that needs a 2m opening... that needs a 2.2.. all these knock-ons, oh and then I could lower the house theoretically etc etc. I am finding out step by step as an amateur does. Clearly I could just "leave it be", or indeed I'm certain the architect would be happy to sit down with me too, but they have delivered the planning pack materials within reason, what they should have for the pre-agreed price, and currently they are on an hourly rate.... Edited July 20, 2020 by puntloos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 31 minutes ago, puntloos said: All true, but take this loft situation for example. We've established at the start that we don't "deeply care" about having a livable loft, but it would be nice I suppose but price and etc etc. So, their design included a loft with a low ceiling as shown (1800mm). But 'at this point' (unfortunate I didn't check earlier perhaps) I've noticed that I am 'close' to reaching a convertible loft etc. So I don't feel they have done it wrong, its just that this came to my attention fairly randomly, perhaps during the discussion around the spiral staircase.. that needs a 2m opening... that needs a 2.2.. all these knock-ons, oh and then I could lower the house theoretically etc etc. I am finding out step by step as an amateur does. Clearly I could just "leave it be", or indeed I'm certain the architect would be happy to sit down with me too, but they have delivered, within reason, what they should have for the pre-agreed price, and currently they are on an hourly rate.... But that's kind of what I've been saying about your approach, you've asked an architect to design a two storey house - if you're brief was to have a three storey house then their design would likely be different to balance all the things that a three storey house needs - so why not start with a process of discussion, not design, to figure out exactly what it is you want? [slight aside - 1800mm isn't particually "close" for a loft conversion - you'd likely to have to insulated under the rafters to achieve compliance with the building regs (or go for a warm roof build up) so you're going to add a good bit of height to 1800 for a viable conversion] I understand that you're not experienced, but you have appointed a professional, at your cost, to design a house for you based on what they've done before and what you thought you wanted at the outset. You really aren't getting any value from your architect by moving the goal posts, a clear brief should be the starting point really before pen touches paper. The design process, especially for an engaged self builder, is an iterative one that can take a while to get right but really, things like the number of storeys are pretty fundamental to a project at the outset, especially when you've been advised that it's unlikely to get planning permission by the person you've employed to advise you on those aspects... Edited July 20, 2020 by the_r_sole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntloos Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, the_r_sole said: But that's kind of what I've been saying about your approach, you've asked an architect to design a two storey house - if you're brief was to have a three storey house then their design would likely be different to balance all the things that a three storey house needs - so why not start with a process of discussion, not design, to figure out exactly what it is you want? Easy for you to say if you're in the business for ages! But fact is that if you're new to this process, you actually don't know exactly what you want, and it's absolutely unrealistic for an architect to talk their client to every single detail that I, due to a personal interest, have now picked up, and - to a point - understand the implications and the choices that the architect made around it. As you well know, many such small design choices can have big effects, and I completely understand that my architects made some of them very well-reasoned but never explained the exact reasoning since you can't talk through every tiny thing. Instead, we did exactly as you said, and I even still stand by the point around the number of floors we initially wanted mind you. 18 minutes ago, the_r_sole said: [slight aside - 1800mm isn't particually "close" for a loft conversion - you'd likely to have to insulated under the rafters to achieve compliance with the building regs (or go for a warm roof build up) so you're going to add a good bit of height to 1800 for a viable conversion] Fair enough, FWIW I'm at this point resigned that I can't achieve 2200 (but I know that "for a fact" now, due to buildhub!) rather than just my architect's word. This is valueable to me at least. But - given that I'm 1m93, I am slightly hoping I can achieve 2000 so I can at least stand without hitting my head. Anyway it's just one example (although ha it's more on-topic than the rest here ) 18 minutes ago, the_r_sole said: I understand that you're not experienced, but you have appointed a professional, at your cost, to design a house for you based on what they've done before and what you thought you wanted at the outset. You really aren't getting any value from your architect by moving the goal posts, a clear brief should be the starting point really before pen touches paper. The design process, especially for an engaged self builder, is an iterative one that can take a while to get right but really, things like the number of storeys are pretty fundamental to a project at the outset, especially when you've been advised that it's unlikely to get planning permission by the person you've employed to advise you on those aspects... Ah you apparently haven't followed my journey on this. We had one of the most detailed briefs out there Yeah. I guess I'm weird. But I do appreciate your opinions on this, and I definitely don't want to wear out my welcome, either here in buildhub, or with the architect. This loft discussion has been a bit of a strange rabbit hole though, because "as an amateur" I thought just raising the roof a little by taking a bit off the GF and done, but taking me into the weird world of building reqs and drainage slopes etc - very interesting for sure. I don't consider it a negative, even if it leads me to simply accept the architect's 1800 as is. As for cost, eh, we have made explicitly clear to the architect they are being hired to make sure the house is 'coherent', we've never disagreed with their professional opinion on that area, so other than that we are just having a fair dialog (where the architect probably (?) doesn't know I'm critiquing/improving/designing-by-Buildhub-committee ) and their hourly rate is - for now - acceptable cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitpipe Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 8 hours ago, puntloos said: What's the widest span you had to cover? (I understand there's a ton more variables, but just curious) I don't think any individual spans were greater than 4-5m - there was a surprising amount of steel in the GF structure as we have that cantilevered bathroom and an open plan U shape ground floor. 8 hours ago, puntloos said: Nope, don't know. I've been trying to find the info on my survey but I don't think it says. The only thing I see on there is a manhole marked "SV" (sewage valve?) about 20m away from the edge of my property, which is about 0.5m lower than my DPC, which sounds mildly promising since it would mean that it sits indeed at slightly better than about 1:50 ratio (assuming the actual pipe is somewhat below that manhole lid) Remember that you won't have a continuous run of foul drain point to point, you'll step through a series of ICs, ideally 10m apart (to allow for rodding) and you loose some invert at each IC. Also, you want to think carefully where each IC is - they are easy enough to hide in patio / driveways if you use the Clarke covers but avoid anything straddling hard surface and grass for example. 8 hours ago, puntloos said: Yeah I'm sure some strategy will be done there, we haven't done detail design yet.. You'll probably need a sump & pump arrangement to ground level foul drainage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 6 hours ago, puntloos said: Easy for you to say if you're in the business for ages! But fact is that if you're new to this process, you actually don't know exactly what you want, and it's absolutely unrealistic for an architect to talk their client to every single detail that I, due to a personal interest, have now picked up, and - to a point - understand the implications and the choices that the architect made around it. As you well know, many such small design choices can have big effects, and I completely understand that my architects made some of them very well-reasoned but never explained the exact reasoning since you can't talk through every tiny thing. Instead, we did exactly as you said, and I even still stand by the point around the number of floors we initially wanted mind you. Fair enough, FWIW I'm at this point resigned that I can't achieve 2200 (but I know that "for a fact" now, due to buildhub!) rather than just my architect's word. This is valueable to me at least. But - given that I'm 1m93, I am slightly hoping I can achieve 2000 so I can at least stand without hitting my head. Anyway it's just one example (although ha it's more on-topic than the rest here ) Ah you apparently haven't followed my journey on this. We had one of the most detailed briefs out there Yeah. I guess I'm weird. But I do appreciate your opinions on this, and I definitely don't want to wear out my welcome, either here in buildhub, or with the architect. This loft discussion has been a bit of a strange rabbit hole though, because "as an amateur" I thought just raising the roof a little by taking a bit off the GF and done, but taking me into the weird world of building reqs and drainage slopes etc - very interesting for sure. I don't consider it a negative, even if it leads me to simply accept the architect's 1800 as is. As for cost, eh, we have made explicitly clear to the architect they are being hired to make sure the house is 'coherent', we've never disagreed with their professional opinion on that area, so other than that we are just having a fair dialog (where the architect probably (?) doesn't know I'm critiquing/improving/designing-by-Buildhub-committee ) and their hourly rate is - for now - acceptable cost. I do remember your brief but how much did you spend with the architect discussing and rationalising it? As I say, it just seems like you're not utilising the skill set of the professional you're paying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadnaught Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 9 hours ago, puntloos said: high(ish) ceilings. I actually intended to start another topic on this Please do. Interesting topic. I am going for 3-metre ceilings throughout in my modern bungalow just because I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntloos Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 3 hours ago, the_r_sole said: I do remember your brief but how much did you spend with the architect discussing and rationalising it? As I say, it just seems like you're not utilising the skill set of the professional you're paying... Since the architect is on a fixed quote for the various stages there's only "so much" one could expect to be included? They visited us 2x (3-4 hour session) and then perhaps 5-6 more hours of discussion, then created 5 sketches, then worked up the sketch we picked (after some of our amendments) one sketch that was worked up into a full 3D design and did a few more minor changes and provided the materials for PP. After that they started charging the pre-agreed hourly rate. I don't think they did anything wrong, just that I'm avoiding the hourly rate by also doing my own legwork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, puntloos said: Since the architect is on a fixed quote for the various stages there's only "so much" one could expect to be included? They visited us 2x (3-4 hour session) and then perhaps 5-6 more hours of discussion, then created 5 sketches, then worked up the sketch we picked (after some of our amendments) one sketch that was worked up into a full 3D design and did a few more minor changes and provided the materials for PP. After that they started charging the pre-agreed hourly rate. I don't think they did anything wrong, just that I'm avoiding the hourly rate by also doing my own legwork I get it, but really your own legwork is complicating things and making the job of the architect more difficult,, they are spending time trying to make your revisions work, rather than them preparing revisions which they know to be compliant, I'd say you've found the most expensive way of employing an architect! By the time you get to submitting a planning application, you should be looking at minor tweaks to design, not exploring adding entire stories to the design, something fundamental like that should have been ironed out long ago - I know you say you're still learning etc, but really if you're employing professionals to advise and guide you, then you need to trust in their advice and guidance - or if you don't want that, use a cheap draftsman to draw up your plans. If you spent all that time putting together your brief, surely what you want is a house that satisfies the brief? if you're constantly changing the scope of the brief I'd say it's going to get very expensive in professional fees with no real outcome for you - you should have stopped the architect at the sketch stage and settled your requirements then. I would revisit your brief and try to understand why the requirements of that no longer suit and update accordingly before you go back to the architect with your next set of changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldkettle Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 I've been following this conversation with a massive interest. Firstly, because we are trying to fit 3 levels into 8.5m house and as a part of this effort have been asking the same questions on the depth of the floor structure and the option to sink the ground floor somewhat. Secondly, because like the OP I have been doing it all myself with the help of this forum (and google) - and for very similar reasons. I appreciate the goodwill of those who help us (for free!) shouldn't be abused. Unless I misread the advice badly it sounds like it's time to go back to paid professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntloos Posted July 21, 2020 Author Share Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, the_r_sole said: I get it, but really your own legwork is complicating things and making the job of the architect more difficult,, they are spending time trying to make your revisions work, rather than them preparing revisions which they know to be compliant, I'd say you've found the most expensive way of employing an architect! Do I get a prize? (badum-tish) Quote By the time you get to submitting a planning application, you should be looking at minor tweaks to design, not exploring adding entire stories to the design, something fundamental like that should have been ironed out long ago - I know you say you're still learning etc, but really if you're employing professionals to advise and guide you, then you need to trust in their advice and guidance - or if you don't want that, use a cheap draftsman to draw up your plans. If you spent all that time putting together your brief, surely what you want is a house that satisfies the brief? if you're constantly changing the scope of the brief I'd say it's going to get very expensive in professional fees with no real outcome for you - you should have stopped the architect at the sketch stage and settled your requirements then. I would revisit your brief and try to understand why the requirements of that no longer suit and update accordingly before you go back to the architect with your next set of changes. As mentioned before I don't think this topic is really representative of my approach, the whole 'ceiling height' was just a rabbit hole thing I went down to figure out if I could prevent hitting my head in the loft. In general the changes I've asked of the architect primarily came down to making sure things were optimal that we couldn't change in a quick NMA after pp. But again, thank you, I will make sure to tread carefully and I actually should be done at this point. Edited July 21, 2020 by puntloos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 TBH I think your bigger issue is going to be getting that flat roof through on planning - it is a very odd design and not one I've seen used with a lot of success. It is also a nightmare to build and ensure it is watertight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtop Posted July 21, 2020 Share Posted July 21, 2020 On 20/07/2020 at 13:52, Bitpipe said: Here's your challenge. Planners deal with planning law. Building Control (whether LA or private) deal with adherence with building regs law. SEs ensure the dwelling will be structurally sound (and their work/calcs feeds into BC), QS will give you an estimate of what the dwelling could cost to build based on SPONs etc... Planners will happily give you permission to build a dwelling that fails to meet building regs. They will even give you planning permission for a building on land you don't own as that's a legal issue, not a planning issue (see also covenants etc..). Building control will happily tell you why the building you have planning for does not meet regs for a dozen or so reasons and needs modifications (e.g. extra insulation in roofs / walls, windows needing moved, fire provisions not being met, disability access etc..) SEs will happily tell you why the architects design is not buildable or that you need lots of steel to make it viable. QS will happily quote you a number you can't afford or one that you can afford but can't find a builder who will do it for that price. One of your architect's roles should be to straddle these domains and design you a dwelling that will get planning, will pass building control and is buildable to your budget. There may be some esoteric issues that they are not super familiar with which you can query them on but significant issues like fire regs etc should be familiar to them. At a min they should be all over the building regs, QS and SEs are usually outsourced (and may be provided by your builder / contractor). If they really are not engaging with you on these things then you need to be very wary as you may pay them handsomely and then pay again to have it all redesigned to keep SE, BC and even QS happy. Regarding basement, yes planners do need to be aware as they impact the gross internal area which is a planning consideration. If there are street side visible elements like light wells then that factors in also. Note if your basement is a dark windowless hole at the centre of your house with no independent means of exit then you could have issues depending on other fire suppression methods (sprinklers, FDs etc). Whatever you plan to use it for, if it has stairs down to it then BC will be interested. i.e. if you're down there storing something when a fire starts and can't get out then you may die. That tends to get BCs attention. A loft that could be converted to habitable use in the future but is just a windowless space with a hatch upon completion is probably not going to get attention as you would need to get permission to convert it in the future and would need to get BC to sign off any future works. this is one of the best and simplest descriptions of the roles I have seen!. We had all of that except the QS. In our case the architect led with planning, liaised with the SE and from that led with BC. We did end up with lots of steels due to the architects fancy overhangs, but we like it so that's fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitpipe Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 20 hours ago, redtop said: this is one of the best and simplest descriptions of the roles I have seen!. We had all of that except the QS. In our case the architect led with planning, liaised with the SE and from that led with BC. We did end up with lots of steels due to the architects fancy overhangs, but we like it so that's fine Thanks. Sadly this all only becomes apparent when you're finished the process My personal 'architect folly' is two balconies at the rear of the house for main and guest bedroom. Look nice and break up the rear wall, were a pain to build and cost quite a few ££, never used as they face west so out of sun in morning and not really required in evening. A simple Juliet would have done the job and given us more bedroom space. You live and learn. Build issues were my omission - I did not ensure that the MBC outer skin had sufficient or regular fixing locations for wall mounted balcony glass. Also GRPd the flat roof over the living area in that spot so could not drill into it. Ended up with a very nice but not cheap aluminium deck sitting on the GRP section with composite decking on top and a clever cantilevered glass system that fixes to the deck itself. The deck is secured into the surrounding wall sideways vs down through the GRP. Not cheap. Architect render below is from our initial planning app - in the 'as built' version the composite cladding on the side of the roof was replaced with render, two velux per room became one big one, sliders not bifold, no bris soleil and there is a mezzanine deck about 1m below patio level where I'm shown as standing which forms part of our exit from the basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_r_sole Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 18 minutes ago, Bitpipe said: Ahh, the bold inset balcony! Having my formative years working on the west coast of Scotland, this is a detail that shall never be featured on one of mine! Mind you balconies in general here aren't massively useful unless they've got significant weather protection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtop Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 we have a large balcony of our bedroom, yet to see if we use it however I tend to feel we will; seem to spend more time outside the current house than in so lots of outside sitting areas more important than internal space tbh. we are in cornwall mind, so its very mild but can be wet. issue with our build was the massive overhangs required steels, and we didn't spec thermal breaks so a super efficient house has gone out the window with lots of steel penetrations through the timber frame. then again we are windows open all the time, doors left open and heating hardly ever used type of people (in a 'normal' 70s house) so probably wont be an issue in practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtop Posted July 22, 2020 Share Posted July 22, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now